It was good for its time

Games aging is not a literal term you pedantic retard

It's applicable to a point, but you can't make it a blanket statement either way. A PS1 game is going to feel pretty limited compared to a lot of what you can play today, but a SNES or Megadrive game can still be equally as enjoyable as it once was because it's not directly comparable to (most) games out today. That said if you go back and try and play an Atari 2600 game you're probably going to be bored pretty quickly unless you're a massive nostalgiafag.

That's not what OP was saying. Grats on your inability to read, dumbass shitposter.

aging implies that the game would degrade over time which doesnt happen, if youre implying that a new game with different mechanics somehow makes the older games mechanics worse, youre retarded

you are correct

>aging implies that the game would degrade over time which doesnt happen
They do on a conceptual level.
>if youre implying that a new game with different mechanics somehow makes the older games mechanics worse, youre retarded
That's exactly what happens.
See: the usage of save systems over password systems.

>anime reaction image
get a load of this cumbrain

Attached: 1560478476633.jpg (1250x1500, 1.71M)

>the usage of save systems over password systems.
password systems were shitty when they came out just like they are shitty now, they were always shit, they didnt magically become shit over time

>THING DON'T EVER IMPROVE ALWAYS STAGNANT UNGA BUNGA
retard yunyunposter

Part of the appeal of games (and other forms of entertainment) is being wowed at how far the visuals are being pushed to their limits. Crysis is alright now, but playing it a decade ago would've been a mind-blowing experience

i just beat revenge of shinobi for the first time today
game is fucking great

No one said they were shit at the time, it was standard

I beat it for the first time last year, fantastic game. Fuck that one really long jump over the water though.

>things with no point of reference cant be criticized

Attached: 1552902681578.jpg (1024x862, 96K)

>it's a sketch
dropped

Both can exist
>its qualities are objectively good for its time and it hit its mark in achieving new heights in video game development
>its gameplay is dull (but still technically functional) by modern standards
FF7 would have aged like shit if not for the modern ports having fast forward/always limit/skip random encounters buttons. Great technical achievement, would have been incredibly dull to play today if not for the "get to the fucking point" buttons

>It's good for what it is
What a fucking meaningless statement. What the fuck does that mean? Are you trying to imply other games can be good for what its not? Just fucking come out and say the game was mediocre you indecisive fuck.

>FF7 would have aged like shit if not for the modern ports having fast forward/always limit/skip random encounters buttons.
kys 12 year old retard

>No one said they were shit at the time
No, no people said they were shit even during the time, you mouthbreathing retard. The Japanese have fucking horror stories about DQ1's password system. They hated that shit, but dealt with it because otherwise it meant keeping the system on ALL of the time, at least until the save battery came around.

Shut the fuck up Yunyun.

Attached: 1560539698454.jpg (976x1079, 150K)

>random encounters good
found the retarded weeaboo

>>its gameplay is dull (but still technically functional) by modern standards
Exactly what modern standards are those that magically give you more ADHD than the past had, mongoloid?

Take your average Jason Statham action movie. Prime examples of, "good for what it is." Good movies by your average film standards? Not really. But as mindless entertainment filled with gratuitous violence, they get the job done fine. It's not about "is" or "is not". It's about allowing it a different set of standards or certain amount of leeway because the thing in question wasn't trying to meet those standards in the first place and instead opted for a different goal.

Wrong retard, the hated super long password systems. People were fine with easy ones like Aladdin save system

Seething boomers, dilate

>Good movies by your average film standards? Not really. But as mindless entertainment filled with gratuitous violence, they get the job done fine
This is the part that's the most retarded. It's a good movie or it's a bad movie. Why the fuck are you putting some weird stigma on it by saying "it doesn't meant the average film standard"? What average film standard? There are WAY more blockbuster action films then artsy-fartsy indie festival films, so shouldn't that shit be the other way around? What the fuck is the problem with putting a gory movie next to an action movie next to an oscar-winning drama piece exactly? Why are you precluding the former two from the last one's group and adding "Well it's not GOOD but it was actually good" like a retard?

I replayed FF7 last month and it's really nowhere near as bad as you're making it sound. The encounter rate in most areas is very reasonable compared to some of the earlier FFs and battles are over fairly quickly. Although it could do with some modern QOL changes like maybe a "warp to worldmap function" from save points.

>People were fine with easy ones like Aladdin save system
No they fucking weren't. People would just rather fucking play the game than put in ANY password, even if it's only 4 characters long for a level select feature, cause then they aren't wasting time drawing squiggles on a paper and can just play the dumb game.

random battles bad
lootboxes good

>explore subway tunnel
>slowly walk across 10 identical screens while running away from uninteresting random encounters, only to find nothing at the end
>spend 3 minutes running up a single staircase as a Family Guy tier gag
Games should be fun. Seethe harder

Password systems sucked back then and became even more intolerable after proper saving was introduced.
Ergo, the mechanics aged and became worse over time.

FF7 was garbage back then, too. Any game released when Sony and Nintendo went full style-over-substance garbage gaming in the mid-90s was never good (and others followed).
The amount of viral marketing to gamers who didn't know any better for fucking garbage games ruined the industry and made it into the shitshow gaming is today.

This really upsets you, doesn't it?

Like 10,000 years ago, cave paintings were magnificent. By today’s standards, they’re shit though.

games were a new technology years ago, they were testing ways to do things. For example loot crates and shitty gacha stuff is a RECENT thing which stems from experimentation on how to fuck around with the medium. In the beginning they didn't know how to go about making shooters, turn based RPGs, platformers, etc. It was all an attempt to see what works and what doesnt, but now they have shit almost down to a science and it is becoming a shitshow of skinning people for money rather than a good product.

What we have are some older games that did the thing they did well and were memorable. People STILL like the original doom, and back when it first came out it was a fucking mind blowing idea to do a shooter. However today shooters are like the bread and butter of this shitshow and they all look and feel the same.

Context matters user

>cause then they aren't wasting time drawing squiggles on a paper and can just play the dumb game.
Wrong braindead tard, people were fine with writing down long cheatcode passwords

You are underage so know nothing of the time

Drives me up a fucking wall it does. Easily in my top 10 of pet peeves, along with retards being "grammar anti-fascist", and people who quit.

i don't play modern games so both are bad and JRPGs suck

Attached: 1557119626406.png (901x889, 729K)

>people were fine with writing down long cheatcode passwords
No they weren't, moron. They dealt with it because they had to. Nobody wanted a password system, and any argument about people who cheat at a game go right out the fucking window when you introduce simple command codes like Konami codes and shit. It was garbage when it started, still garbage today.

My personal favorite is "conversate".

Based retard

die grandpa

Didnt read it whatsoever, but you wrote all that, just for it to get ignored
Felt bad for you, so have a (You)

>21 year old grandpa
i don't know if i should be happy or saddened at this revelation

You have the mind of a grandpa

Not him but I'm very curious. What don't you like about JRPGs exactly?

Intelligent yunyunposter

The easiest way to show that games do age is to take a game that was mind blowing on release and give it to someone born after it's release, without telling them it's mind blowing.
If they come out if the game thinking it's just alright, then the game has indeed aged.

i don't like the settings of them and i don't like the boring turn based gameplay most of them offer
the only JRPGs that i've liked are Parasite Eve and Valkyria Chronicles
at least in those you can move around instead of just pressing buttons in menus

Not him but storyshit that belongs in Yea Forums.

It's threads like these I regret going on Yea Forums

Hang yourself millennial

By your shitty logic all games are shit cause in the future you can physically go into a game

>It's threads like these I regret going on Yea Forums
based
7 GRAND DAD

also this desu
i like games where you aren't forced story in your face but can find it on your own pace like stuff in the Shock games, and stuff like the translator in Unreal, archive items in Siren, holotapes in Fallout, etc.

Stop trying underage. Memorizing simple passwords was no harder than remembering your friends' phone numbers and such. No one was complaining about lack of autodial either.

That might become the case. If we all get hooked on full immersion, games of you're will become incredibly dull and unengaging in comparison.
Therefore, they will have aged.

*games of yore

Uh, what? I've actually lost track of what you're saying now. I'm sayin passwords were shit when they originally came out, and that's been my only real argument. If a game is good now, or a game is good in the past, it won't matter, it'll just be good.

>Memorizing simple passwords was no harder than remembering your friends' phone numbers and such.
Why the fuck would you do that when you had rollodexes and PDAs? Did you even fucking grow up in the time period you're accusing me of not growing up in?
>No one was complaining about lack of autodial either.
Yeah, everyone was completely happy with dialing digits every time they wanted to talk to someone. That's why the autodial was never invented in the first place, because lack of market int-oh wait....

Games being good or bad are a state of being, not a characteristic, it's subject to change.

So everything is shit

>If a game is good now, or a game is good in the past, it won't matter, it'll just be good.
Incorrect standards change tard

It's my mistake for trying to contribute, I should have just posted a retarded frog or a wojak for (You)s

No, everything *will become* shit.

>standards change tard
Yeah, you lowered yours to a point where you're playing movies in your PS4. Meanwhile, I continue to play games.

Typically games that defined a genre fall into this area. They are still okay games but have been completely outclassed by games that came out later. I every much enjoyed Civ 2 when it released, it was great but Civ 4 is a much better game than it.

>Is the dumbest fucking argument, if a game was good 20 years ago you should be able to enjoy it to this day or else it's a shit game

Ok, and what you just said isn't even an argument, as it completely lacks any substance. Learn to debate, retard.

Agreed. Super Mario Bros and Pokemon Crystal hold up, OoT and Morrowind don't.

>two games that have been copy pasted ad infinitum good
>two games that haven'tt bad

Ultima 2 was good for its time, it was a simple RPG with time traveling elements, and nobody cared about killing that one NPC in the town to get his gold and quickly run out of the town so the guards don't kill you and doing that for the next 8 hours because Lord British had no better idea for getting gold to complete a necessary part of the game.
Now compare that to Ultima 7 which came out like 10 years later, and yeah Ultima 2 is kind of a shit game.
How about controls? Ultima had like every key on the keyboard have some kind of function, functions that probably could have been combined instead of press W to equip weapon and R for armor, instead it could have been I for inventory, then 1 or 2 for weapon or armor and you can fuck around from there.
Yeah, sometimes shit back then was good for the time, but we've come a long way in game design, a lot of it for the better, and even I as someone who did play games like Ultima back then enjoyed them but can't for the life of me get back into it because of how fucking awful some of the shit is.

They are still good albeit outdated.

>it was a simple RPG with time traveling elements, and nobody cared about killing that one NPC in the town to get his gold and quickly run out of the town so the guards don't kill you and doing that for the next 8 hours because Lord British had no better idea for getting gold to complete a necessary part of the game.
I've never played any Ultima before, but I know enough about general game design that you gamed the system and are blaming it as bad game design because you're a giant faggot. Opinion discarded.

Imagine fooling Yunyun into thinking you love her, by ironically asking her to join your party, ironically going on a date together, ironically telling her you love her, ironically having lots of passionate sex with her, ironically spending your monthly income on a ring for her, ironically having a wedding so spectacular that only you can realize that it's a joke, ironically having 2 beautiful children, ironically growing old togther with her, and then saying "heh, gotcha" on your death bed with your final breath. What a prank that would be!

Attached: yunyun (16).png (503x846, 502K)

A system that can be gamed has a flawed design.

Nice meme kiddo

Lord British's intention on getting gold was obviously dungeon crawling with the awful first person view thing, and that would take for fucking ever to get the necessary gold, and you run the risk of dying. Are you suggesting that's good game design? At the time we didn't know better, so of course we thought it was fun, but playing it now is awful.

You see what the game is trying to do, and they do a good job of it even if you don't personally like it or simply find it diffrent or just lacking in some respect. Things are nuanced than "Good" and "Bad".

Technology, and Game desighn has improved over the years. And new games occupying the same space have been realeased. Maybe X really was the best when it realeased. But then everyone iterated and improved on it. Now X seems generic, bland, and primitive. Or say Y realeased and it completly blows peoples minds with it's graphics. Fast forward a few years and you realize the game has very little substance and basically existed to show off the hardware.

"Aging" means that whatever a game did can become antiquated by improvements on its concepts made by future games.

Like save systems, better design, etc etc

If your idea of a flawed design is wasting your own time and grinding a single bug for 8 hours instead of just playing the game normally for 2-6, then by all means. Game the design.

So what you're saying is you sucked at the game, so you chose to waste your own time instead of gitting gud. Right. Totally the standards of the time and their infantile ways. Nothing to do with you being a pussy.

Lets say there was an RPG, it was revolutionary because you could pick between a knight, a thief, and a wizard. To the modern player this is not at all impressive, but in its time this was seen as such an amazing thing it would top lists of the greatest games, this is how a game can age.

But mechanics getting obsolete and players getting used to better or improved mechanics makes the games worse in retrospect. They don't magically become worse, they just are worse than newer stuff, and when you're used to the new you'll quicker notice the flaws with the old

>ironically having 2 beautiful children
>not ironically having enough children to make a baseball team

Attached: 1537334343974.jpg (818x503, 163K)

>Grinding for 8 hours with a bug is stupid
>Instead, you shoud be grinding for 8 hours in dungeons that are not fun to play through
This is your brain on nostalgia

Some games(and other forms of media) specifically rely on a sort of shock value. Something only effective the first time through. Sometimes a game about exploration is only fun when you don't know where everything is.
Sometimes a game with a good story is only as good when you don't know all the twists and turns that are coming.

>Left without arguments, the millenial will simply resort to "muh nustolgia"
I even said at the start of this I never played Ultima, I just know you're making shitty excuses for your own poor decision making skills when you spend a full workday grinding a bug instead of just playing the game you got. If you're not having fun with the dungeons, either git gud or drop the game. Don't blame the game for your own shortcomings.

Nintendo's N64 era games were for the most part better than their SNES counterparts.
SM64 > SMW
OoT+MM > LttP
F-Zero X > F-Zero
MK64 > SMK
SF64 > Star Fox

Now (you) me with your asshurt.

So is it good or not?
I see a video of it every once in a while on youtube but I have no idea if it's good.

This. Jesus, people act like it didn't evolve with time. Look at the goddamn camera work for starters.

The game is not good anymore. It aged poorly. The dungeons were novel and good then. They are not now.

What exactly makes them not good?

>if a game was good 20 years ago you should be able to enjoy it to this day
The Ultima series. The Wizardry series. The original XCOM. These all have horrible limitations in their UI and their design that make them painful to play, especially with modern gameplay expectations, but they were all the best of the best back in the day. It is very much a real thing.

>The original XCOM
Don't know about the rest of them, but I played original xcom about 3-4 years ago in preparation for the newer sequels.
Game was fucking 10/10 and is probably still one of the best games I've played in the last decade. Definitely still holds up.

Attached: 1561296254417.gif (978x827, 1.29M)

You're right OP, you look at series that started with entries like Thief The Dark Project or Witcher which, pioneering for their times, are an absolute hosing to play. You can't even strafe in Thief.

We can appreciate their contributions to pushing video games forward while acknowledging they no longer hold up as fun in the modern day.

There's something to be said for innovations in gameplay. Sometimes a game comes out that brings new ideas which improve the way a genre is played, or maybe creates entirely new genres. Of course, the stuff that comes after takes those ideas, copies or improves them. Eventually, the game that was maybe revolutionary at the time is now just average or even a bit crap among games like it. Very VERY few games are timeless experiences.

I could not stand it at all. I hated how I couldn't see anything, how it factored in explosions, how aiming worked, how the UI in general worked. It was abysmal and one of the worst experiences I ever had in gaming.

Thats bullshit. Every human has a certain standart, if that standart gets higher, older stuff appears worse.
Burnout 1 was a good game at release, but looks horrible after you played burnout takedown.

>UI in general
I had no problem with the UI itself, only that the limits to resolution limiting my view was annoying, but hardly a deal breaker.

Agreed

based yunyun
that's why your my wife

Then why are most flagship Super Nintendo titles still amazing by today's standards, while the N64 literally only has some 2d games, Mario 64, and sort of Majora's Mask?

I played all 3 of those long, long after they were first released, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I still play X-COM all the time, and I don't think any modern game has really managed to surpass it.

You're comparing the absolute peak of 2D gaming to the beginnings of 3D gaming. I wish zoomers would leave.

Inferior demons get out.

Attached: top right.png (2048x1940, 3.39M)

Fuck no, are you retarded? What works is what works. Even things that are obviously a result of experiments that didn't pan out (like Jumping Flash's controls orMegaman Legends' controls) can still be fun to this day because they were still good games in spite of that once you adjust to the parts that wouldn't have been done in this day.

Games should be judged based on the time they came out, generally speaking. Like, sure, Ocarina of Time isn't all that special nowadays. That's because it was hugely influential and pretty much everything near its genre took inspiration from it. I consider Ocarina of Time to be basically the tipping point between early 3D and modern 3D. There was still progress to be made, yes, but it set the foundation for so many things. Of course, if you've played a lot of modern 3D games, and then go back to Ocarina of Time, you'll think "what made this so special?". I mean, it's the same with all things. Modern music listeners can go back to The Beatles and wonder why people even bother talking about them. Modern moviegoers can go back to Star Wars and ask how it inspired one of the biggest franchises in history. "Good for its time" isn't some retarded deflection made by nostalgiafags, it's a legitimate form of reasoning.
Everything starts from somewhere. Super Mario Bros. isn't very impressive to play today. At the time of its release, it was the greatest video game ever made, a game which influenced hundreds of future games.

I love my wife Yunyun!

>how aiming worked
funny
That is exactly why I hate new xcoms

Best example for this still comes from movies, Citizen Kane. Back in the day it was a revolutionary film that finally made movies a respected art form, but when you watch it today, it looks like just another drama film. Almost all of its merits are purely contextual to its time.

List three games

If Prince of Persia (1989) was released today everyone would think it was indie trash so this argument is bullshit. And the sentiment that "games can age poorly" is true regardless of what you think of the semantics

But they don’t, the gameplay and graphics are the same now as they were 30 years ago. Nothing has changed.

why are you assuming this is about speed and not about making interesting decisions at every turn?